I have often speculated on how or why a man of Zane Hodges’s character fell to such corrupt theology.

At some time in our lives, we have ALL been in a heated argument where the other person was as “wrong as rain,” that if 10,000 people had heard the entire exchange, they would have agreed with you. And yet, your “friend” (or whomever) argued until he was blue in the face with a vigor that was undeniable, and it was clear he had chosen to believe a lie to exonerate himself. His logic may have been idiotic, but he believed it.

No one will ever know what turned Hodges to this profound (deconstructionist) error on the gospel. Is there any way to confirm such things? Could it have been an experience such as the following scenario?

Zane had been involved in a dialogue about the gospel with someone he loved. By the time that person died, he or she had assented only to the fact that Jesus offered eternal life, but had either rejected His divinity, His atoning death, or His resurrection.

It was not necessary that they rejected all three. Zane was a smart man, and would not be able to advance any kind of an argument that would eliminate one of those facts from the embodiment of saving faith from the others. (The elimination of one without the others would seem arbitrary).

The pain of his friend being in Hell was more than he could bare, and his mind began to tinker with ways to rationalize they were with the Lord. And this gave birth to the reductionist gospel known as the “Crossless” or “Promise-Only” gospel.

Is this how it happened? We will not know until we pass to the other side.

Although the free-grace movement pre-dated Zane (John Nelson Darby, C.H. MacIntosh, Harry Ironside, Lewis Sperry Chaffer), and co-dated Zane (Ray Stanford, Dick Seymour, et al.), few could deny that Zane would, today, be the elder statesmen of the free grace movement had it not been for his final departure from the historic Christian Gospel as the only message of salvation. Almost everyone in the contemporary free grace movement had been influenced by Zane’s cogent treatment of “problem” verses and books. I scheduled all of my seminary classes around my determination to take electives under Zane on Hebrews, 1st John, and James. I will never regret it. And I’m sure I am not alone in my debt to Zane.

So it was all the more that those of us who read some of Zane’s later writings, and his attempts to defend these novel theological positions . . . those of us who weighed Zane’s arguments objectively stood by and watch in disbelief. Zane’s arguments were plainly below the intellect and careful weighing of the facts that we had come to expect of him.

For Zane, we can only speculate. But as for his followers, the answer is far simpler.

In the Gospel of John, there were “secret service believers” who were unwilling to confess Him publicly, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. I have noticed that those who have embraced the Crossless gospel were not theologians and Christians punctuating the evangelical landscape, who read the work of some unknown theologian (Zane) on the web or in print, and found the arguments compelling.

NO! The “inner circle” consisted of those men (and women) who had been embraced by Zane as a friend, and/or fellow theologian. They had an emotional stake in Zane’s friendship. Or more importantly, because Zane was a respected theologian of the first order, they had a vested emotional stake in Zane’s validation of them as theologians. To a man, people like Bob Wilkin and John Niemela somehow “saw the logic” of all of Zane Hodges’s defections.

Hodges’s position on repentance is illogical, and lexically and theologically indefensible. In Bob Wilkin’s own doctoral thesis, he had a section reviewing the existing works on the subject. In his remarks about one book, his comments incorporated a rather terse humor.

“So and so writes largely from her own emotional experience, and devotes little effort to a serious exegesis of the text.” (I read his doctoral thesis twenty years ago, so please indulge any inaccuracies in my attempt to quote the line from memory.)

I could not help but think, after reading Zane’s later discussions on repentance, that Bob’s words in his doctoral thesis described Zane’s articles to a ‘T’. Yet somehow, Zane’s inner circle, including Bob, “saw the light” of Zane’s new position.

GES member and national conference speaker, Antonio da Rosa, defined (in the thread) the GES reductionist system by clearly stating,

“Yes a (lost) person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?” See Details Here

The GES, because of its Crossless gospel, has isolated itself into an extremist corner for its reductionist assault on the Gospel, i.e. the content of saving faith.

This week I am publishing a new multi-part series by Brother Ron Shea. The series is divided into the following chapters:

Late last evening I received a copy of an Open Letter from FGA President Dr. Fred Lybrand to FGA President elect, Dr. Fred Chay.

The Open Letter will be available shortly for download, in its entirety (37 pages) at the Fred Lybrand blog and here at IDOTG. Here are selected excerpts for your consideration.

“It is my deepest hope that GES will repent of its recent error and return to the Free Grace Movement. Perhaps there is a future discussion to be had, and I remain hopeful; however, I want it to be abundantly clear that the GES Gospel, in its current iteration, is not something I can endorse as legitimate or supportable from the Word of God.”

“The Free Grace Movement did not start with GES, though it could end with it. If we leave the mainstream and follow the sincere, but misguided thinking of recent years, we will no longer be a Movement, but will rather star in the inevitable last act of fading away as a Monument.”

“The GES Gospel is a change in the very definition of the Gospel of Grace that violates our own FGA Covenant when it states,

‘Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.’

I was there when we formed these words together, knowing that the death and resurrection of the Savior was clearly among our concerns. I also know that it was Larry Moyer’s counsel to us that also contributed to this emphasis. In any event, believing in the finished work of Christ clearly is not the same as the GES Gospel’s notion of the gospel being nothing except ‘believing that He can guarantee one’s eternal life’. As the GES Gospel advocates point out—Jesus made this promise before He died, which means He made the promise before His work was finished. To believe the GES Gospel is to deny the Classical Free Grace understanding of the gospel through which we are eternally saved.”

There is much more that sheds light from an insider’s perspective on some previously unknown issues in and surrounding the debate within the Free Grace movement. Things that clearly define why GES is not representative of historic Free Grace theology. Things that define how GES has steadily drifted from a biblically balanced view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ thorough reductionist thinking

Following are the opening paragraphs from the Open Letter.

Dear Dr. Chay,

Fred, at your request I am finally, and reluctantly, addressing the issue concerning the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and the ‘crossless gospel’, so called. I say ‘so called’ because I would name it the GES Gospel. I am not aware of it being held by anyone, anywhere, in history; it is solely owned and promoted by GES. Of course, I am sure that when most GES folks present the gospel, they include a mention of Christ’s death and resurrection. However, when one asks, “What must one believe to be saved?” --- Then the cross and resurrection are clearly unnecessary pieces of information for saving faith and eternal salvation in the GES Gospel view. And as any objective person can see, eventually this line of thinking will invade their presentation of the saving message.

I am aware that you attended a meeting involving a number of folks to attempt to look at the text surrounding (especially) GES and its novel view of the Gospel by which we are eternally saved. I am very thankful that you were invited to attend the meeting, since as you know, in the past we have offered to sponsor such collegial and academic discussions to no avail. It is my deepest hope that GES will repent of its recent error and return to the Free Grace Movement. Perhaps there is a future discussion to be had, and I remain hopeful; however, I want it to be abundantly clear that the GES Gospel, in its current iteration, is not something I can endorse as legitimate or supportable from the Word of God.

I’m sure they might take exception as to whether or not they have left the Movement, but the fact is that GES is no longer mainstream (if it ever was) regarding those who have been patently ‘free grace’ throughout history. In particular, traditional and mainstream Free Grace leaders such as Dr. Chafer, Dr. Ryrie, and Dr. Radmacher are all in print as affirming the necessity of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross regarding one’s deliverance from eternal damnation. My suspicion is that many folks involved with the Grace Evangelical Society are simply unaware (as was I) that profound doctrinal shifts in the organization have occurred since 1999, culminating in sweeping doctrinal changes in their Statement (August 2005) and the recent attacks (the Hydra-headed article and the review of JB Hixson’s book) against those who disagree with the GES reformulation of The Gospel of Grace. (links added)

The Open Letter from FGA President Dr. Fred Lybrand to FGA President elect, Dr. Fred Chay is available for download below.

Bible-believing Christians all across evangelical Christianity can be thankful for men who are coming forward to clarify the crux of the doctrinal controversy.

Lord willing the advocates of the GES “Crossless” gospel can recovered from and repent of the errors they currently propagate. While we wait the Gospel of Grace will go forward in truth and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

April 13, 2009

In The FGA Announces Open Break with the GES one of our contributors JanH responded to a comment posted by another friend of IDOTG, Jason. Jason posted the following (excerpted) comment in the FGA Breaks with the GES thread.

“God bless, first and foremost.

Lou, just to be clear, I spoke with Wilkin not long ago, and asked this question about some nameless person or some random person named Jesus promising eternal life...He (Wilkin) told me personally, ‘No Jason, You must believe that it is Jesus Christ, for nobody else has the authority to offer eternal life.’

I’m not sure what’s been published, but I specifically brought this issue to light with Bob, and he made clear that the unsaved must believe the promise of Jesus Christ.”

Jan posted a reply to Jason that I feel is very helpful and deserves exposure as a stand alone article. What follows is Jan’s reaction, to what Bob Wilkin stated to Jason. This, in no way, should be considered critical toward Jason, for it is not.

Hi Jason-

I don’t believe I have had the pleasure of interacting with you yet. I am kind of new around here.

Regarding what Wilkin said to you:

“He told me personally, ‘No Jason, You must believe that it is Jesus Christ, for nobody else has the authority to offer eternal life’.”

What Lou said is correct, (which was):

“Much of what you noted from Wilkin is GES mantra speak. Please note what you attributed to Wilkin, “…he made clear that the unsaved must believe the promise of Jesus Christ.” It is the promise of eternal life that is the object of faith for the GES camp. Notice that he does not insist the lost know and believe that Jesus Christ is deity. That is by design and with purpose.”

Some time ago Lou posted an article on the change in the GES doctrinal statement. I don’t know how to post a link, but the article is on November 28, 2008 and called Grace Evangelical Society’s Reductionist Affirmation of Belief. By comparing the original version with the revised version you can see that many orthodox doctrines have become casualties of the GES reductionist heresy.

Lou begins with this:

Until August 2005 the official Grace Evangelical Society (GES) Affirmation of Beliefs on the doctrine of salvation was stated as follows (*abbreviated form):

“Jesus Christ, God incarnate, paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary. Any person who, in simple faith, trusts in the risen Christ as his or her only hope of heaven, refusing to trust in anything else, receives the gift of eternal life, which once granted, can never be lost.

The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell is faith (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man's sin and rose from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).”

That previous statement was revised. Following is the current version of the GES Affirmation of Beliefs.

“The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).

Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus (‘he who believes in Me has everlasting life’) is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47 ; 11:26; 1 Tim. 1:16).”

In the former Affirmation, “Jesus Christ” is identified as deity by use of the term, “God incarnate.” This reference to the Lord’s deity has been deleted from the current Affirmation. (End Quote)

Affirmations of Belief are not like furnished rooms that are redecorated just ‘cause. One would only change it if a need was seen to do so, such as a doctrinal change that had occurred within the group that the existing Affirmation no longer reflected. This is what happened here. There was nothing wrong with the original Affirmation. They have changed their views. So they took a perfectly good statement and revised it to better reflect their new position, notably removing this clear orthodox statement “Jesus Christ, God incarnate paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary,” and not even replacing it. And notably changing this clear orthodox statement “The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell...” and replacing it with “The sole condition for receiving everlasting life...” (thereby removing the consequences of not trusting Christ.)

What they have done is cause their AoB to emphasize the promise of eternal life more than anything else, even to making the death of Christ on the cross secondary to faith in the person of Christ, removing reference to the consequences of not trusting Christ and greatly diminishing the understanding of Jesus Christ's deity (they did leave “Lord” in there.) There is no good reason to do this.

On February 3rd and 9th Lou posted an article of mine If Anyone Eats of This Bread, where I took up the issue of Wilkin saying that some FG adherents,

“...limit the essentials about the Person and work of Christ-arbitrarily-to three points: Jesus’ deity, His death on the cross for our sins, and His bodily resurrection from the dead.”

He (Wilkin) said this in the November/December 2008 issue of Grace in Focus.

My article was about the need for preaching Christ crucified, but the point here is that Wilkin called the cross, the resurrection and the deity of Christ “arbitrary” points in the gospel.

So with all this stuff in print, along with Antonio da Rosa (who is given a platform to speak at the GES conference even with his Mormon Jesus comment) I would say Wilkin’s verbal answer to you was blowing smoke.

There are many doctrinal casualties in the changed GES position. One of them is indeed the deity of Christ.

April 7, 2009

Today an e-mail from the FGA’s Executive Council was sent to its existing membership. Among other items of interest the following major announcement was included:

The Grace Evangelical SocietyAfter much discussion and reflection, the FGA Executive Council has concluded that in the light of misunderstandings in our broader Christian community, it is important for us to issue the following statement:

The Free Grace Alliance is not associated with the Grace Evangelical Society and does not endorse the GES Gospel (also referred to as “crossless” or “promise only” by some). We invite those who share our heart for the Gospel’s clarity and declaration, of both the Person and Work of Christ, to join hands with us.

This a welcome, long anticipated and necessary announcement.

Any individual in the Free Grace community that does not align with, but has by default been perceived to be a member of or sympathetic to the GES will find the FGA announcement very welcome news.

There has indeed been a long held “misunderstanding in our broader Christian community.” As I put it “a serious misunderstanding across a broad cross section of Evangelical Christianity.” The misunderstanding is that the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) is the representative voice of the broad base of men and women who identify themselves with the Free Grace (FG) community. This is and has been a serious misnomer that has been in sore need of correction. The GES is in fact a shrinking cell of theological extremists that do not speak for or represent any Bible-believing Christian outside the GES leadership, membership and its sympathizers.

The GES propagates what has come to be known and accurately defined as the “Crossless Gospel,” “ReDefined Free Grace Theology” and the “Promise Only Gospel.” It is largely because of the GES reductionist assault on the content of saving faith; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name and/or ministry to be identified with the GES.

GES reductionist soteriology is the most egregious form of anti-biblical heresy ever introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own, namely the late Zane Hodges. This reductionist assault on the Gospel, i.e. the content of saving faith, is propagated solely by the Grace Evangelical Society and its Executive Director, Bob Wilkin.

The reductionism, originated by Zane Hodges, has long since rendered the GES irrelevant and impotent in any discussion of or debate over the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No advocate of the GES “Crossless” gospel can be taken seriously in any discussion of the Gospel, especially in the matter of justification by faith.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the Hodges, Wilkin “Crossless” gospel it can be boiled down to this cover statement.

The GES believes that a lost man does NOT have to be aware of, understand or believe in the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ, but can still be born again. Only belief in the promise of eternal life by a man named Jesus, no matter who the lost man believes him to be, including the non-deity Mormon Jesus, grants to him (the lost man) eternal life.

It is my understanding that this major announcement from the FGA will very shortly appear at the Free Grace Alliance site.

Certain highly disconcerting events have been in play since September 2007 and have come to the fore in recent days. If the issue I am about to disclose had not involved my blog as well as one of my contributors it would never have become an issue here. I’d prefer NOT to disclose the following, but the issue is so serious and the stakes so high I feel that it must be addressed. You will appreciate the gravity of the situation as it unfolds below.

Brother Antonio da Rosa:

On Tuesday (3/31) Michele (Sanctification, who attended the 2009 Grace Evangelical Society [GES] National Conference) directed the following statement to me from her blog:

“Also, you were right. Today in one of his sessions brother Antonio confessed to the thing which you have broadcast...It was at the start of his session and a sound guy walked up a little bit later and turned his mike on, so it may not show up on the mp3.”

On Thursday morning (4/2) Michele sent this to me:

“He (da Rosa) is confessing over the unrighteous charge of another brother as you have presented it.”

Michele’s meaning is that at last week’s Grace Evangelical Society National Conference you have privately confessed your public personal attack (under cover of two false identities) against Brother Ron Shea.

DISCLAIMER:
If you had not been blocking my attempts to e-mail you in private and had not been unreceptive to my earlier attempt to discuss this with you privately there would be no need to publish this open letter.

HISTORY:
To refresh those who are familiar with the history of what you did, but primarily those who are not familiar, I am going to provide a brief synopsis of the events and then address you personally.

On September 8 & 12, 2007 you publicly libeled and defamed Brother Ron Shea in one of the most heinous ways imaginable and to a lesser degree offended me in the process. *You used an “Anonymous” handle to post at my blog what was no less than criminal libel and defamation of Brother Shea. In four subsequent e-mails you sent to me and Brother Shea you used The Truth Detector as your alias. In the e-mails you reiterated your libel and defamation of Brother Shea, plus you also revealed your motive for the attacks on him, which was blackmail.

Within days it was irrefutably proven by a professional IT investigator that you (Antonio) were one and the same as “Anonymous” at my blog and The (Mr.) Truth Detector in the four e-mails. Even though we knew you were the infamous Mr. Truth Detector we did not disclose this to the public.

Just a few months ago you were asked in public by another blogger if you had anything to do with the Sock Puppet: fg me and the personal attack on Ron Shea. To the first you confessed to being the **Sock Puppet: fg me.

***To the second, however, you emphatically stated that you had nothing to do with the incident involving Brother Shea.

Just a few weeks ago one of your Crossless blog partners (Rose of Rose’s Reasoning’s) at the pro-GES gospel blog, Unashamed of Grace (UoG), stated that she asked you if you had anything to do with the libel and defamation of a brother in Christ. She published this statement on March 20, 2009 at the UoG blog, “I (Rose) am certain that you (Lou) have no such proof, because Antonio told me that he did not do it.”

In March 2009 I sent you (Antonio) a private e-mail in which I openly, for the first time, confronted you directly and personally with what you did at my blog by way of the libel and defamation of Ron Shea. You decided to publish that e-mail at your UoG blog. This was IMO foolish of you to do that. Nevertheless, it was, therefore, with that posting by you, that your actions as The (Mr.) Truth Detector were “broadcast.”

****The week prior to the GES National Conference I sent to Bob Wilkin, Rene Lopez, John Niemela, Bob Bryant and Kyle Kaumeyer a full disclosure of your blog comment and four subsequent e-mails. I included details of the investigation that proved you are the originator of these personal attacks against Ron Shea. You received a carbon of the documentation that Wilkin and Kaumeyer acknowledged receiving.

All of the above has been groundwork leading up to what, according to Michele, transpired at GES this week.

RESPONSE to ALLEGED CONFESSION:
Michele indicates that off microphone, prior to your first GES workshop, you confessed to being the man who, under two different false identities, libeled and defamed Ron Shea. Without the advantage of having heard your remarks it may be that you offered much less or possibly much more than that. Furthermore, it is not known at the present if you attempted to qualify and/or justify your unethical actions against Brother Shea, which has been your pattern in previous lapses of commonly accepted ethical norms.

Once Wilkin reviewed the documentation of what you did to Brother Shea on his (Wilkin’s) behalf, it is my opinion that he (Wilkin) insisted on your alleged confession before allowing you to begin your first workshop.

I commend him for this, if in fact it happened that way. What I do not understand is why a Christian leader would feature any man or woman at a national conference who is infamous for this and additional examples of serious lapses in ethical behavior. IMO, the alleged private confession of your heinous libel and defamation of Brother Shea would have been enough reason for a responsible Christian leader to dismiss you from the speaking schedule.

Nevertheless, even now you still refuse to publicly confess and repent of what you did to Brother Shea in the public arena. You refuse to publicly confess to the offended party, Ron Shea, and seek reconciliation with him. In September 2007 you were quite eager with a stated motive to publicly defame him, but now you show no eagerness to publicly resolve the matter with him. Why?

All you did at GES is privately confessed (to a friendly crowd that was not the target of your personal attacks) to being caught in yet another gross public lapse in ethical behavior, and embarrassing the GES. That is NOT biblical repentance!

Nothing has been resolved because nothing has been confessed, apologized for and repented of. Your sin remains! In my opinion, private sin may only require only private, discreet resolution. Public sin, however, demands public resolution!

“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift,” (Matt. 5:23-24).

Your sin remains! Secretive confession of a public sin in the form of personal attacks is a dodge and is IMO as sinful as the act itself. You have done nothing to lift the cloud of sin that hangs over you. The convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit is inescapable.

“If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me,” (Psalm 66:18).

You have not satisfied the demands of true biblical repentance and reconciliation. IMO, what you did was political to protect GES from your actions and keep your workshop speaking opportunity in tact.

Do the right thing Antonio: Publicly confess your libel and defamation of Brother Shea, which you committed at my blog and in four subsequent e-mails to me and Brother Shea.

Publish an unqualified confession, apology and genuinely repentant response to Ron Shea. If you want to return to where you published your attack on him I will give you permission to post your public confession and apology to Brother Shea at my blog in the same thread in which you personally attacked him.

LM

*See the place of da Rosa’s libel and defamation by following THIS LINK. Because of the henious nature of his first post as “Anonymous” the content was deleted, but the posting is still present. His public blog comment in which he attacked Brother Shea and the e-mails have been archived. They are available for viewing upon request.

***See Rachel’s note in the comment thread below, which includes Antonio’s denial of personal involvement in the libel and defamation of Ron Shea. Antonio wrote,

“Concerning your question about Ron Shea, I have never posted any anonymous comments, at all: good or bad, concerning this man. Until now, I have not heard of such a thing, nor have read anything remotely resembling anonymous slandering of this person.”

****A copy of this e-mailed documentation sent to the GES leadership is available upon request. You will need to disclose your full legal name in an e-mail to me.

There are at least two major events about to take place in regard to the defense of the Gospel. I have several articles that I have been holding in the wings while these new and major developments unfold.

In the meantime you may choose to read other articles. There is an extensive selection on both Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel. You may peruse the Labels archive below, use the search feature in the upper left hand corner above or choose from Top Picks From the Archives.

If you want to be added to an e-mail notification list use the Subscribe service below down the left column of this blog. Or you can send me an e-mail and I will then included you an my personal notification list or join the followers area. Or you might sign up for the Followers section.

Check back at your convenience for the new major articles/announcements.

New From the Author

I have written the revised & expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel to provide the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation. There are areas where one must balance soul liberty and Christian charity and agree to respect different views. The gospel, however, is not one of them. The works based theology of Lordship Salvation and its advocates must be vigorously debated, and biblically resisted. May God protect unsuspecting believers and the lost from the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.

Followers

Copyright Notification

No part of this blog's articles may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise-without the prior written permission of the author(s), with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles and/or reviews.

Disclaimer

As a blog, this venue is open to comments by persons of differing opinions. The opinions expressed herein by various contributors do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of In Defense of the Gospel, or its owners.

Although we indulge differing opinions, we do not condone, and are not responsible for, any false or misleading statements of a libelous or defamatory nature. See 47 U. S. C. sec. 230 (c) (1).

Any slanderous remarks posted herein will be removed immediately upon notification of the offended party of specific untrue statements contained within a posted comment.